Do we need Samba if networking ONLY Linux machines?

**HermanAB** · August 19th, 2015

NFS is trivial to configure - one line in one file - vs Samba that has a 3 inch thick book. So the choice is obvious.

Apart from NFS, you can also use FTP, WebDAV, SSH, Netcat - a veritable zoo of ad hoc network methods. Usually, I don't bother with NFS even. I just run sshd on each machine, put the host names in the hosts file and copy files around with scp, either from the command line, or with Konqueror or Dolphin.

**SeijiSensei** · August 19th, 2015

Originally Posted by Bucky Ball

Just wondering what this is based on. The debate continues. A lot more secure? Don't think so.

Considering that NFS enforces the very same permissions as the rest of any *nix system, I don't think so either.

**matt_symes** · August 19th, 2015

Hi

NFS on a trusted network is fine.
NFS on an untrusted network requires NFSv4 and Kerberos with auth and encryption.
NFS over the Internet is just nuts.

Anyway, that's besides the point. If you trawl through the CVE database you will see both NFS and samba have had major security issues over the years. Most software has.

On my trusted LAN, I use both. Samba shares are exported ro and NFS share exported rw.

I use NFSv4 and Kerberos with auth only and I only set that up to really play with it. I wanted any machine and user able to access my NFS shares to be authenticated, not because I have any major security concerns but because I wanted to learn how to set a a KDC and admin server. I also wanted to set up a local DNS and NTP server and this sounded like a good coherent set of tasks to play around with.

Just chewing the cud here really

Kind regards

**Morbius1** · August 19th, 2015

Since this has become an NFS vs Samba argument I though I'd look at the original question again - in parts:

Originally Posted by 777funk

I always thought of Samba as a bridge from Linux to Windows.

Samba ( their own in-house version ) is now the default file sharing mechanism in Apple's OSX replacing AFP. Together with Microsoft that constitutes 95% of the world's desktop systems. Since many Linux distros now install the samba server packages by default the number increases marginally from that. In addition Android can do it as well as iOS.

What if there are NO Windows machines? Still need Samba?

I guess it depends on the definition of "need". I personally believe that KDE is an over-engineered mess. Do I personally believe that the Linux ecosystem needs KDE? Absolutely not. My view is irrelevant however since KDE appears to be alive and well.

So does an all Linux network need Samba? No.